29 thoughts on “A Limerick A Day

  1. Anomanomanom

    So people on massive pay think the plebs should work till they cant actually enjoy their retirement. Apparently living for 25 years, exact words on the radio this morning, after retirement is to long for the state to pay a pension.

    1. Rob_G

      Well… it is.

      Due to falling birth rates and longer life expectancy, there just won’t be enough workers paying money into the pot to keep the retirement age at 65.

      1. Anomanomanom

        Except thats not true… just from a quick Google I found this…. Ireland had the highest birth rate among European Union countries last year, and the joint lowest death rate.

        The State’s baby boom saw 63,900 live births recorded during 2016, a rate of 13.5 births for every 1,000 of the population. This birth rate was well ahead of Sweden and the UK (11.8 per 1,000) and France (11.7 per 1,000).

        The figures from the EU statistics agency Eurostat estimate that there were 30,400 deaths recorded in the State last year (6.4 per 1,000), the joint lowest along with Cyprus.

        The study says Ireland (at 7.1) had the biggest “natural rise” in population in the EU last year, a figure which excludes the rate of migration 

      2. ahjayzis

        Get more people then. Ireland’s underpopulated, the world isn’t.

        Ireland is super sparsely settled. So much so we have no effective internal market to sustain us.

        If we ever learn to build cities we could be a great country.

    2. Cian

      It’s relative. In the past life expectancy was a lot lower, so if you got pension at 65 you weren’t (on average) going to claim it for very long (you were lucky to get to 65).
      “Life expectancy at birth in Ireland, as calculated by the CSO, increased from under 58 years in 1925-27 for both males and females to 76.8 years for males and 81.6 years for females in 2005-2007. ”

      In the past people started work younger, and could have done 47 years of contribution before retiring (if they lived that long). Nowadays many people don’t start work until their early 20s, and take ‘gap years’, 40 years of contribution for 16-20 years pension!

      Today, a 65-year-old can expect to live to 81.6 (M) or 84.8 (F). that’s 16-20 years of pension!

      On the other hand we need to recognise that different types of jobs are suited to older workers. Anyone doing physical labour can’t be expected to continue working into their late 60s.

  2. edalicious

    I find it weird that, on one side, you’ve got people trying to push out the retirement age to get people to work and pay taxes longer, and on the other side, you’ve people looking at implementing a universal wage because there won’t be enough jobs to go around after all the manufacturing and agriculture jobs are taken over by robots. Which one is it? I think robots should pay income tax.

  3. Alan

    I work in IT. AI will remove a lot of jobs in the coming years. Raising the pension age and fewer jobs….. Its going to be one balancing act that will be next to impossible to achieve.

    1. ahjayzis

      It’s going to be interesting times.

      Will the masses support so much of their world being owned by so few of the people when those few people are no longer ‘job-creators’ throwing scraps from their table?

      When our social services crumble due to massive unemployment through automation, any current semblance of wealth redistribution will be completely obsolete.

      The link between worth and work will have to be cut or there’ll be a massive majority underclass and it’ll be revolution city.

      It’s could be the dawn of a utopia or complete and total societal breakdown and a dark age >_<

      1. Rob_G

        On the basis that basically every leap forward in technological achievement so far has meant a net improvement in people’s lives, I approach the coming age with optimism :)

      2. Alan

        We are coming to a crossroads alright.
        An interesting fact…. A far greater percentage of the wealthy is now only coming from inherited wealth. The data is showing that it is becoming a lot harder to join the next class. If you are born poor or in the middle class then you have less chance of getting rich. Fewer and fewer are getting ahead and the rich are the only ones getting richer.
        When we finally come to the crossroads, will we find a society that will want change for the betterment for all or one that will protect their own interests.

  4. Boj

    So the question here is should we look after our fellow humans or the economy? Which is more important? I would say human, but I say this as I’m not minted. I’d imagine a minted person considers the economy to be more important. So who has the power? That’s right, the minted people, and they always get what they want. Happy days, work to the grave.

  5. John

    I’m surprised they don’t just cull those at age 63 who don’t have earnings of more than €150,000. I mean what kind of loser makes it to that age and hasn’t “made it”? The economy shouldn’t be burdened with carrying them.

  6. dav

    How long before this bean-counter approach to the lives of our elderly citizens will lead to a suggestion of mandatory euthanasia for people above a certain age – because the country can’t afford them..?

      1. dav

        I’m wondering where this approach will lead us to. We are now saying that “finances” dictate us as a nation to make our elderly citizens work on to greater ages. How soon will it be until “finances” dictate us to “trim the fat” of our population??

        1. A snowflake's chance in hell

          Hopefully not long

          also the same with forced sterilisation for the welfare careerists and cant pay wont pay cohort

        2. Rob_G

          People are obliged to retire later/retire earlier for a variety of reasons (a lot of civil servants were pensioned off early around 2009/2010 as it was too expensive to keep paying their salaries).

          It’s a way pragmatic way of dealing with financial/demographic realities, not the dystopian ‘Logan’s Run’-type of scenario that you are trying to frame it as.

          1. dav

            Well our elderly are referred to as “bed-blockers” when the strain on our health services “resources” are brought up time and time again. This dehumanising of our elderly citizens does have an impact. I refer you to the Nazi calling for the sterilisation of the unemployed, how soon before more of his ilk seen a rationale in killing the elderly?

          2. Rob_G

            “I refer you to the Nazi calling for the sterilisation of the unemployed, how soon before more of his ilk seen a rationale in killing the elderly?”

            – this is a bit of a progression from calling elderly people ‘bed-blockers’ (unpleasant a term as this is).

            OAPs are the demographic who vote most consistently, and their numbers are growing; politicians tend to be scared to be seen as voting against OAPs’ interests. I don’t think we will see old-people death trains any time soon…

    1. Boj

      HoHoHo – the money men and/or women won’t like that idea at all at all. The aim of the game is to grab as much money/power you can before you die.

  7. Frilly Keane

    if only we could all be like Noirin,
    and Sweary Mary
    even our own Dan

    Working another 10 years before collecting 200 yoyos a week
    while Noirin has been guzzling through 2 grand a week for 20 years

    No effin way lads

Comments are closed.